NLST PrimaryPaper

new england
The
journal of medicine
established in 1812 august 4, 2011 vol. 365 no. 5
Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed

Tomographic Screening
The National Lung Screening Trial Research Team*
A BS T R AC T
Background
The aggressive and heterogeneous nature of lung cancer has thwarted efforts to The members of the writing team (who
reduce mortality from this cancer through the use of screening. The advent of low- are listed in the Appendix) assume re-
sponsibility for the integrity of the article.
dose helical computed tomography (CT) altered the landscape of lung-cancer screen- Address reprint requests to Dr. Christine
ing, with studies indicating that low-dose CT detects many tumors at early stages. D. Berg at the Early Detection Research
The National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was conducted to determine whether Group, Division of Cancer Prevention,
National Cancer Institute, 6130 Execu-
screening with low-dose CT could reduce mortality from lung cancer. tive Blvd., Suite 3112, Bethesda, MD
20892-7346, or at bergc@mail.nih.gov.
Methods
* A complete list of members of the Na-
From August 2002 through April 2004, we enrolled 53,454 persons at high risk for tional Lung Screening Trial research
lung cancer at 33 U.S. medical centers. Participants were randomly assigned to un- team is provided in the Supplementary
dergo three annual screenings with either low-dose CT (26,722 participants) or sin- Appendix, available at NEJM.org.
gle-view posteroanterior chest radiography (26,732). Data were collected on cases of This article (10.1056/NEJMoa1102873) was
lung cancer and deaths from lung cancer that occurred through December 31, 2009. published on June 29, 2011, at NEJM.org.
N Engl J Med 2011;365:395-409.

Results Copyright © 2011 Massachusetts Medical Society.
The rate of adherence to screening was more than 90%. The rate of positive screen-
ing tests was 24.2% with low-dose CT and 6.9% with radiography over all three
rounds. A total of 96.4% of the positive screening results in the low-dose CT group
and 94.5% in the radiography group were false positive results. The incidence of
lung cancer was 645 cases per 100,000 person-years (1060 cancers) in the low-dose
CT group, as compared with 572 cases per 100,000 person-years (941 cancers) in
the radiography group (rate ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to 1.23).
There were 247 deaths from lung cancer per 100,000 person-years in the low-dose
CT group and 309 deaths per 100,000 person-years in the radiography group,
representing a relative reduction in mortality from lung cancer with low-dose CT
screening of 20.0% (95% CI, 6.8 to 26.7; P = 0.004). The rate of death from any cause
was reduced in the low-dose CT group, as compared with the radiography group,
by 6.7% (95% CI, 1.2 to 13.6; P = 0.02).
Conclusions
Screening with the use of low-dose CT reduces mortality from lung cancer. (Funded
by the National Cancer Institute; National Lung Screening Trial ClinicalTrials.gov
number, NCT00047385.)
n engl j med 365;5 nejm.org august 4, 2011 395

The New England Journal of Medicine
Downloaded from nejm.org at VA LIBRARY NETWORK on March 17, 2014. For personal use only. No other uses without permission.
Copyright © 2011 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.
The n e w e ng l a n d j o u r na l of m e dic i n e
L
ung cancer is an aggressive and het- scription of the design and operations of the trial,
erogeneous disease.1,2 Advances in surgical, including the collection of the data and the ac-
radiotherapeutic, and chemotherapeutic ap- quisition variables of the screening techniques,
proaches have been made, but the long-term sur- has been published previously.10
vival rate remains low.3 After the Surgeon Gen-
eral’s 1964 report on smoking and health, mortality Me thods
from lung cancer among men peaked and then
fell; among women, the peak occurred later and Trial Oversight
a slight decline has occurred more recently.4 Even The NLST, a randomized trial of screening with
though the rate of heavy smoking continues to the use of low-dose CT as compared with screen-
decline in the United States,5 94 million current ing with the use of chest radiography, was a col-
or former smokers remain at elevated risk for the laborative effort of the Lung Screening Study
disease,6 and lung cancer remains the leading (LSS), administered by the NCI Division of Can-
cause of death from cancer in this country.3 The cer Prevention, and the American College of Ra-
prevalence of smoking is substantially higher in diology Imaging Network (ACRIN), sponsored
developing countries than in the United States, by the NCI Division of Cancer Treatment and Di-
and the worldwide burden of lung cancer is pro- agnosis, Cancer Imaging Program. Chest radio
jected to rise considerably during the coming graphy was chosen as the screening method for
years.7 the control group because radiographic screen-
Although effective mass screening of high-risk ing was being compared with community care
groups could potentially be of benefit, random- (care that a participant usually receives) in the
ized trials of screening with the use of chest ra- Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO)
diography with or without cytologic analysis of Cancer Screening Trial (ClinicalTrials.gov num-
sputum specimens have shown no reduction in ber, NCT00002540).11 The NLST was approved by
lung-cancer mortality.8 Molecular markers in the institutional review board at each of the 33
blood, sputum, and bronchial brushings have been participating medical institutions. The study was
studied but are currently unsuitable for clinical conducted in accordance with the protocol; both
application.8 Advances in multidetector computed the protocol and the statistical analysis plan are
tomography (CT), however, have made high-res- available with the full text of this article at
olution volumetric imaging possible in a single NEJM.org.
breath hold at acceptable levels of radiation expo-
sure,9 allowing its use for certain lung-specific Participants
applications. Several observational studies have We enrolled participants from August 2002 through
shown that low-dose helical CT of the lung de- April 2004; screening took place from August 2002
tects more nodules and lung cancers, including through September 2007. Participants were fol-
early-stage cancers, than does chest radiography.8 lowed for events that occurred through December
Therefore, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) 31, 2009 (Fig. 1 in the Supplementary Appendix,
funded the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST), available at NEJM.org).
a randomized trial, to determine whether screen- Eligible participants were between 55 and
ing with low-dose CT, as compared with chest 74 years of age at the time of randomization, had
radiography, would reduce mortality from lung a history of cigarette smoking of at least 30 pack-
cancer among high-risk persons. The NLST was years, and, if former smokers, had quit within the
initiated in 2002.10 In October 2010, the available previous 15 years. Persons who had previously re-
data showed that there was a significant reduc- ceived a diagnosis of lung cancer, had undergone
tion with low-dose CT screening in the rates of chest CT within 18 months before enrollment, had
both death from lung cancer and death from any hemoptysis, or had an unexplained weight loss of
cause. We report here the findings of the NLST, more than 6.8 kg (15 lb) in the preceding year
including the performance characteristics of the were excluded. A total of 53,454 persons were
screening techniques, the approaches used for and enrolled; 26,722 were randomly assigned to screen-
the results of diagnostic evaluation of positive ing with low-dose CT and 26,732 to screening
screening results, the characteristics of the lung- with chest radiography. Previously published ar-
cancer cases, and mortality. A comprehensive de- ticles describing the NLST10,12 reported an enroll-
396 n engl j med 365;5 nejm.org august 4, 2011

Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose CT Screening
ment of 53,456 participants (26,723 in the low- varies widely but is approximately 8 mSv.10,13,14
dose CT group and 26,733 in the radiography Chest radiographs were obtained with the use of
group). The number of enrolled persons is now either screen-film radiography or digital equip-
reduced by 2 owing to the discovery of the dupli- ment. All the machines used for screening met
cate randomization of 2 participants. the technical standards of the American College
Participants were enrolled at 1 of the 10 LSS of Radiology.10 The use of new equipment was
or 23 ACRIN centers. Before randomization, each allowed after certification by medical physicists.
participant provided written informed consent. NLST radiologists and radiologic technologists
After the participants underwent randomization, were certified by appropriate agencies or boards
they completed a questionnaire that covered many and completed training in image acquisition; ra-
topics, including demographic characteristics and diologists also completed training in image qual-
smoking behavior. The ACRIN centers collected ity and standardized image interpretation. Im-
additional data for planned analyses of cost-effec- ages were interpreted first in isolation and then
tiveness, quality of life, and smoking cessation. in comparison with available historical images
Participants at 15 ACRIN centers were also asked and images from prior NLST screening exami-
to provide serial blood, sputum, and urine speci- nations. The comparative interpretations were
mens. Lung-cancer and other tissue specimens used to determine the outcome of the examina-
were obtained at both the ACRIN and LSS centers tion. Low-dose CT scans that revealed any non-
and were used to construct tissue microarrays. All calcified nodule measuring at least 4 mm in any
biospecimens are available to researchers through diameter and radiographic images that revealed
a peer-review process. any noncalcified nodule or mass were classified
as positive, “suspicious for” lung cancer. Other
Screening abnormalities such as adenopathy or effusion
Participants were invited to undergo three screen- could be classified as a positive result as well. Ab-
ings (T0, T1, and T2) at 1-year intervals, with the normalities suggesting clinically significant con-
first screening (T0) performed soon after the time ditions other than lung cancer also were noted,
of randomization. Participants in whom lung can- as were minor abnormalities. At the third round
cer was diagnosed were not offered subsequent of screening (T2), abnormalities suspicious for
screening tests. The number of lung-cancer screen- lung cancer that were stable across the three
ing tests that were performed outside the NLST rounds could, according to the protocol, be clas-
was estimated through self-administered question- sified as minor abnormalities rather than positive
naires that were mailed to a random subgroup of results.
approximately 500 participants from LSS centers Results and recommendations from the inter-
annually. Sample sizes were selected to yield a preting radiologist were reported in writing to
standard error of 0.025 for the estimate of the the participant and his or her health care provider
proportion of participants undergoing lung-cancer within 4 weeks after the examination. Since there
screening tests outside the NLST in each group. was no standardized, scientifically validated ap-
For participants from ACRIN centers, information proach to the evaluation of nodules, trial radi-
on CT examinations or chest radiography per- ologists developed guidelines for diagnostic fol-
formed outside the trial was obtained, but no data low-up, but no specific evaluation approach was
were gathered on whether the examinations were mandated.
performed as screening tests.
All screening examinations were performed in Medical-Record Abstraction
accordance with a standard protocol, developed Medical records documenting diagnostic evalua-
by medical physicists associated with the trial, that tion procedures and any associated complications
specified acceptable characteristics of the machine were obtained for participants who had positive
and acquisition variables.10,13,14 All low-dose CT screening tests and for participants in whom lung
scans were acquired with the use of multidetector cancer was diagnosed. Pathology and tumor-stag-
scanners with a minimum of four channels. The ing reports and records of operative procedures
acquisition variables were chosen to reduce expo- and initial treatment were also obtained for par-
sure to an average effective dose of 1.5 mSv. The ticipants with lung cancer. Pathology reports were
average effective dose with diagnostic chest CT obtained for other reported cancers to exclude

the possibility that such tumors represented lung came first). The latest date for the censoring of
metastases. Histologic features of the lung cancer data on incidence of lung cancer and on death
were coded according to the International Classifi- from any cause was December 31, 2009; the lat-
cation of Diseases for Oncology, 3rd Edition (ICD-O-3),15 est date for the censoring of data on death from
and the disease stage was determined according lung cancer for the purpose of the primary end-
to the sixth edition of the Cancer Staging Manual of point analysis was January 15, 2009. The earlier
the American Joint Committee on Cancer.16 At censoring date for death from lung cancer was
ACRIN sites, additional medical records were also established to allow adequate time for the review
obtained for a number of substudies, including process for deaths to be performed to the same,
studies of health care utilization and cost-effec- thorough extent in each group. We calculated the
tiveness.10 confidence intervals for incidence ratios assum-
ing a Poisson distribution for the number of events
Vital Status and a normal distribution of the logarithm of the
Participants completed a questionnaire regard- ratio, using asymptotic methods. We calculated
ing vital status either annually (LSS participants) the confidence intervals for mortality ratios with
or semiannually (ACRIN participants). The names the weighted method that was used to monitor
and Social Security numbers of participants who the primary end point of the trial,17 which al-
were lost to follow-up were submitted to the Na- lows for a varying rate ratio and is adjusted for
tional Death Index to ascertain probable vital the design. The number needed to screen to pre-
status. Death certificates were obtained for par- vent one death from lung cancer was estimated as
ticipants who were known to have died. An end- the reciprocal of the reduction in the absolute risk
point verification team determined whether the of death from lung cancer in one group as com-
cause of death was lung cancer. Although a dis- pared with the other, among participants who had
tinction was made between a death caused by at least one screening test. The analyses were per-
lung cancer and a death that resulted from the formed with the use of SAS/STAT18 and R19 statis-
diagnostic evaluation for or treatment of lung can- tical packages.
cer, the deaths from the latter causes were count- Interim analyses were performed to monitor
ed as lung-cancer deaths in the primary end-point the primary end point for efficacy and futility.
analysis. The members of the team were not aware The analyses involved the use of a weighted log-
of the group assignments (see Section 2 in the rank statistic, with weights increasing linearly
Supplementary Appendix). from no weight at randomization to full weight
at 4 years and thereafter. Efficacy and futility
Statistical Analysis boundaries were built on the Lan–DeMets ap-
The primary analysis was a comparison of lung- proach with an O’Brien–Fleming spending func-
cancer mortality between the two screening tion.20 Interim analyses were performed annu-
groups, according to the intention-to-screen prin- ally from 2006 through 2009 and semiannually
ciple. We estimated that the study would have in 2010.
90% power to detect a 21% decrease in mortality An independent data and safety monitoring
from lung cancer in the low-dose CT group, as board met every 6 months and reviewed the ac-
compared with the radiography group. Second- cumulating data. On October 20, 2010, the board
ary analyses compared the rate of death from any determined that a definitive result had been
cause and the incidence of lung cancer in the two reached for the primary end point of the trial and
groups. recommended that the results be reported.21 The
Event rates were defined as the ratio of the board’s decision took into consideration that the
number of events to the person-years at risk for efficacy boundary for the primary end point had
the event. For the incidence of lung cancer, per- been crossed and that there was no evidence of
son-years were measured from the time of ran- unforeseen screening effects that warranted act-
domization to the date of diagnosis of lung can- ing contrary to the trial’s prespecified monitor-
cer, death, or censoring of data (whichever came ing plan. The NCI director accepted the recom-
first); for the rates of death, person-years were mendation of the data and safety monitoring
measured from the time of randomization to the board, and the trial results were announced on
date of death or censoring of data (whichever November 4, 2010.

R e sult s Table 1. Selected Baseline Characteristics of the Study Participants.*
Characteristics of the Participants Low-Dose CT Group Radiography Group

The demographic characteristics and smoking his- Characteristic (N = 26,722) (N = 26,732)
tory of the participants were virtually identical in number (percent)
the two groups (Table 1). As compared with re- Age at randomization
spondents to a 2002–2004 U.S. Census survey of <55 yr† 2 (<0.1) 4 (<0.1)
tobacco use22 who met the NLST eligibility criteria 55–59 yr 11,440 (42.8) 11,420 (42.7)
for age and smoking history, NLST participants
60–64 yr 8,170 (30.6) 8,198 (30.7)
were younger, had a higher level of education,
65–69 yr 4,756 (17.8) 4,762 (17.8)
and were more likely to be former smokers.12 As
of December 31, 2009, vital status was known for 70–74 yr 2,353 (8.8) 2,345 (8.8)
97% of the participants in the low-dose CT group ≥75 yr† 1 (<0.1) 3 (<0.1)
and 96% of those in the radiography group. The Sex
median duration of follow-up was 6.5 years, with Male 15,770 (59.0) 15,762 (59.0)
a maximum duration of 7.4 years in each group. Female 10,952 (41.0) 10,970 (41.0)
Race or ethnic group‡
Adherence to Screening
The rate of adherence to the screening protocol White 24,289 (90.9) 24,260 (90.8)
across the three rounds was high: 95% in the Black 1,195 (4.5) 1,181 (4.4)
low-dose CT group and 93% in the radiography Asian 559 (2.1) 536 (2.0)
group. Among LSS participants in the radiogra- American Indian or Alaska 92 (0.3) 98 (0.4)
phy group, the average annual rate of helical CT Native
screening outside the NLST during the screening Native Hawaiian or other 91 (0.3) 102 (0.4)
phase of the trial was 4.3%, which was well be- Pacific Islander
low the 10.0% rate estimated in the trial power More than one race or ethnic 333 (1.2) 346 (1.3)
calculations. group
Data missing 163 (0.6) 209 (0.8)
Results of Screening Hispanic ethnic group‡
In all three rounds, there was a substantially Hispanic or Latino 479 (1.8) 456 (1.7)
higher rate of positive screening tests in the low- Neither Hispanic nor Latino 26,079 (97.6) 26,039 (97.4)
dose CT group than in the radiography group
Data missing 164 (0.6) 237 (0.9)
(T0, 27.3% vs. 9.2%; T1, 27.9% vs. 6.2%; and T2,
Smoking status
16.8% vs. 5.0%) (Table 2). The rate of positive tests
in both groups was noticeably lower at T2 than at Current 12,862 (48.1) 12,900 (48.3)
T0 or T1 because the NLST protocol allowed tests Former 13,860 (51.9) 13,832 (51.7)
showing abnormalities at T2 that were suspi-
* CT denotes computed tomography.
cious for cancer but were stable across all three † Patients in this age range were ineligible for inclusion in the screening trial
rounds to be categorized as negative with minor but were enrolled and were included in all analyses.
abnormalities. During the screening phase of the ‡ Race or ethnic group was self-reported.
trial, 39.1% of the participants in the low-dose
CT group and 16.0% of those in the radiography
group had at least one positive screening result. tic evaluation (Table 3). Lower rates of follow-up
The percentage of all screening tests that identi- were seen at later rounds. The diagnostic evalua-
fied a clinically significant abnormality other thantion most often consisted of further imaging, and
an abnormality suspicious for lung cancer was invasive procedures were performed infrequently.
more than three times as high in the low-dose CT Across the three rounds, 96.4% of the positive re-
group as in the radiography group (7.5% vs. 2.1%). sults in the low-dose CT group and 94.5% of those
in the radiography group were false positive re-
Follow-up of Positive Results sults. These percentages varied little by round. Of
More than 90% of the positive screening tests in the total number of low-dose CT screening tests
the first round of screening (T0) led to a diagnos- in the three rounds, 24.2% were classified as pos-

Table 2. Results of Three Rounds of Screening.*
Screening
Round Low-Dose CT Chest Radiography
Clinically Significant Clinically Significant
Abnormality Not Abnormality Not
Total No. Positive Suspicious for No or Minor Total No. Positive Suspicious for No or Minor
Screened Result Lung Cancer Abnormality Screened Result Lung Cancer Abnormality
no. (% of screened) no. (% of screened)
T0 26,309 7191 (27.3) 2695 (10.2) 16,423 (62.4) 26,035 2387 (9.2) 785 (3.0) 22,863 (87.8)
T1 24,715 6901 (27.9) 1519 (6.1) 16,295 (65.9) 24,089 1482 (6.2) 429 (1.8) 22,178 (92.1)
T2 24,102 4054 (16.8) 1408 (5.8) 18,640 (77.3) 23,346 1174 (5.0) 361 (1.5) 21,811 (93.4)
* The screenings were performed at 1-year intervals, with the first screening (T0) performed soon after the time of randomization. Results of
screening tests that were technically inadequate (7 in the low-dose CT group and 26 in the radiography group, across the three screening
rounds) are not included in this table. A screening test with low-dose CT was considered to be positive if it revealed a nodule at least 4 mm
in any diameter or other abnormalities that were suspicious for lung cancer. A screening test with chest radiography was considered to be
positive if it revealed a nodule or mass of any size or other abnormalities suspicious for lung cancer.
itive and 23.3% had false positive results; of the Incidence, Characteristics, and Treatment
total number of radiographic screening tests in of Lung Cancers
the three rounds, 6.9% were classified as positive A total of 1060 lung cancers (645 per 100,000 per-
and 6.5% had false positive results. son-years) were diagnosed in the low-dose CT
group, as compared with 941 (572 per 100,000
Adverse Events person-years) in the radiography group (rate ra-
Adverse events from the actual screening exami- tio, 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03 to
nations were few and minor. The rates of compli- 1.23). In the low-dose CT group, 649 cancers were
cations after a diagnostic evaluation procedure for diagnosed after a positive screening test, 44 after
a positive screening test (listed by category in a negative screening test, and 367 among partici-
Table 1 in the Supplementary Appendix) were low; pants who either missed the screening or received
the rate of at least one complication was 1.4% in the diagnosis after their trial screening phase was
the low-dose CT group and 1.6% in the radiogra- over (Table 5). In the radiography group, 279 can-
phy group (Table 4). A total of 0.06% of the pos- cers were diagnosed after a positive screening test,
itive screening tests in the low-dose CT group 137 after a negative screening test, and 525 among
that did not result in a diagnosis of lung cancer participants who either missed the screening or
and 11.2% of those that did result in a diagnosis received the diagnosis after their trial screening
of lung cancer were associated with a major com- phase was over. Figure 1A shows the cumulative
plication after an invasive procedure; the corre- number of lung cancers through December 31,
sponding percentages in the radiography group 2009, according to the screening group. Detailed
were 0.02% and 8.2%. The frequency of major com- calculations of sensitivity, specificity, positive pre-
plications varied according to the type of invasive dictive value, and negative predictive value are not
procedure. A total of 16 participants in the low- reported here.
dose CT group (10 of whom had lung cancer) and In each group, the percentage of stage IA and
10 in the radiography group (all of whom had lung stage IB lung cancers was highest among can-
cancer) died within 60 days after an invasive diag- cers that were diagnosed after a positive screen-
nostic procedure. Although it is not known wheth- ing test (Table 5). Fewer stage IV cancers were
er the complications from the diagnostic proce- seen in the low-dose CT group than in the radi-
dure caused the deaths, the low frequency of death ography group at the second and third screening
within 60 days after the procedure suggests that rounds (Table 2 in the Supplementary Appendix).
death as a result of the diagnostic evaluation of Low-dose CT screening identified a preponderance
positive screening tests is a rare occurrence. of adenocarcinomas, including bronchioloalveolar

Table 3. Diagnostic Follow-up of Positive Screening Results in the Three Screening Rounds.*
Variable Low-Dose CT Chest Radiography
T0 T1 T2 Total T0 T1 T2 Total
number (percent)
Total positive tests 7191 (100.0) 6901 (100.0) 4054 (100.0) 18,146 (100.0) 2387 (100.0) 1482 (100.0) 1174 (100.0) 5043 (100.0)
Lung cancer confirmed 270 (3.8) 168 (2.4) 211 (5.2) 649 (3.6) 136 (5.7) 65 (4.4) 78 (6.6) 279 (5.5)
Lung cancer not confirmed† 6921 (96.2) 6733 (97.6) 3843 (94.8) 17,497 (96.4) 2251 (94.3) 1417 (95.6) 1096 (93.4) 4764 (94.5)
Positive screening results with complete diagnos- 7049 (100.0) 6740 (100.0) 3913 (100.0) 17,702 (100.0) 2348 (100.0) 1456 (100.0) 1149 (100.0) 4953 (100.0)
tic follow-up information
Any diagnostic follow-up 6369 (90.4) 3866 (57.4) 2522 (64.5) 12,757 (72.1) 2176 (92.7) 1078 (74.0) 957 (83.3) 4211 (85.0)
Clinical procedure 5089 (72.2) 3190 (47.3) 2151 (55.0) 10,430 (58.9) 1414 (60.2) 723 (49.7) 658 (57.3) 2795 (56.4)
Imaging examination 5717 (81.1) 2520 (37.4) 2009 (51.3) 10,246 (57.9) 2010 (85.6) 968 (66.5) 906 (78.9) 3884 (78.4)
n engl j med 365;5

Chest radiography 1284 (18.2) 613 (9.1) 650 (16.6) 2,547 (14.4) 867 (36.9) 381 (26.2) 365 (31.8) 1613 (32.6)
Chest CT 5153 (73.1) 2046 (30.4) 1608 (41.1) 8,807 (49.8) 1546 (65.8) 745 (51.2) 712 (62.0) 3003 (60.6)
FDG PET or FDG PET–CT 728 (10.3) 350 (5.2) 393 (10.0) 1,471 (8.3) 179 (7.6) 105 (7.2) 113 (9.8) 397 (8.0)
nejm.org
Percutaneous cytologic examination 155 (2.2) 74 (1.1) 93 (2.4) 322 (1.8) 83 (3.5) 37 (2.5) 52 (4.5) 172 (3.5)
or biopsy
Transthoracic 120 (1.7) 60 (0.9) 74 (1.9) 254 (1.4) 67 (2.9) 31 (2.1) 43 (3.7) 141 (2.8)
Extrathoracic 39 (0.6) 17 (0.3) 24 (0.6) 80 (0.5) 20 (0.9) 6 (0.4) 13 (1.1) 39 (0.8)
august 4, 2011
Bronchoscopy 306 (4.3) 178 (2.6) 187 (4.8) 671 (3.8) 107 (4.6) 56 (3.8) 62 (5.4) 225 (4.5)

With neither biopsy nor cytologic testing 126 (1.8) 95 (1.4) 99 (2.5) 320 (1.8) 45 (1.9) 19 (1.3) 32 (2.8) 96 (1.9)
With biopsy or cytologic testing 194 (2.8) 95 (1.4) 102 (2.6) 391 (2.2) 74 (3.2) 40 (2.7) 36 (3.1) 150 (3.0)
Surgical procedure 297 (4.2) 197 (2.9) 219 (5.6) 713 (4.0) 121 (5.2) 51 (3.5) 67 (5.8) 239 (4.8)

Mediastinoscopy or mediastinotomy 60 (0.9) 32 (0.5) 25 (0.6) 117 (0.7) 22 (0.9) 12 (0.8) 21 (1.8) 55 (1.1)
Thoracoscopy 82 (1.2) 56 (0.8) 96 (2.5) 234 (1.3) 22 (0.9) 11 (0.8) 20 (1.7) 53 (1.1)
Thoracotomy 197 (2.8) 148 (2.2) 164 (4.2) 509 (2.9) 96 (4.1) 44 (3.0) 44 (3.8) 184 (3.7)
Other procedures 168 (2.4) 96 (1.4) 63 (1.6) 327 (1.8) 55 (2.3) 33 (2.3) 34 (3.0) 122 (2.5)
* The screenings were performed at 1-year intervals, with the first screening (T0) performed soon after the time of randomization. FDG PET denotes 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose positron-
emission tomography.
† Positive tests with incomplete information on diagnostic follow-up are included in this category (142 at T0, 161 at T1, and 141 at T2 in the low-dose CT group and 39 at T0, 26 at T1, and 25
at T2 in the radiography group).
401
Table 4. Complications after the Most Invasive Screening-Related Diagnostic Evaluation Procedure, According to Lung-Cancer Status.*
Complication Lung Cancer Confirmed

Thoracotomy,
Thoracoscopy, or Bron- Needle No Invasive
Mediastinoscopy choscopy Biopsy Procedure Total
number (percent)
Low-dose CT group
Positive screening results for which diagnostic information 509 (100.0) 76 (100.0) 33 (100.0) 31 (100.0) 649 (100.0)
was complete
No complication 344 (67.6) 69 (90.8) 26 (78.8) 26 (83.9) 465 (71.6)
At least one complication 165 (32.4) 7 (9.2) 7 (21.2) 5 (16.1) 184 (28.4)
Most severe complication classified as major 71 (13.9) 2 (2.6) 0 2 (6.5) 75 (11.6)
Most severe complication classified as intermediate 81 (15.9) 5 (6.6) 7 (21.2) 2 (6.5) 95 (14.6)
Most severe complication classified as minor 13 (2.6) 0 0 1 (3.2) 14 (2.2)
Death within 60 days after most invasive diagnostic 5 (1.0) 4 (5.3) 1 (3.0) 0 10 (1.5)
procedure†
Radiography group
Positive screening results for which diagnostic information 189 (100.0) 46 (100.0) 29 (100.0) 15 (100.0) 279 (100.0)
was complete
No complication 130 (68.8) 42 (91.3) 28 (96.6) 14 (93.3) 214 (76.7)
At least one complication 59 (31.2) 4 (8.7) 1 (3.4) 1 (6.7) 65 (23.3)
Most severe complication classified as major 22 (11.6) 1 (2.2) 0 1 (6.7) 24 (8.6)
Most severe complication classified as intermediate 32 (16.9) 2 (4.3) 1 (3.4) 0 35 (12.5)
Most severe complication classified as minor 5 (2.6) 1 (2.2) 0 0 6 (2.2)
Death within 60 days after most invasive diagnostic 4 (2.1) 5 (10.9) 1 (3.4) 1 (6.7) 11 (3.9)
procedure†
* In the case of multiple evaluation procedures of the same type, the earliest is included. Complications that occurred before the most inva-
sive procedure are not included. Participants could have up to three positive screening tests and therefore may be included up to three
times in any row. Columns of procedures are arranged in decreasing order of invasiveness. In the case of the first procedure column, thora-
cotomy was considered to be more invasive than thoracoscopy, which was considered to be more invasive than mediastinoscopy.
† For patients who did not undergo an invasive procedure, deaths were included if they occurred within 60 days after the positive screening result.
carcinomas. Although the use of the term bronchi combined with chemotherapy, radiation therapy,
oloalveolar carcinoma is no longer recommended,23 or both (Table 3 in the Supplementary Appendix).
while the NLST was ongoing, the term was used
to denote in situ, minimally invasive, or invasive Lung-Cancer–Specific Mortality
adenocarcinoma, lepidic predominant (i.e., neo- After the accrual of 144,103 person-years in the
plastic cell growth restricted to preexisting allow-dose CT group and 143,368 person-years in
veolar structure). In both groups, many adeno- the radiography group, 356 and 443 deaths from
carcinomas and squamous-cell carcinomas were lung cancer in the two groups, respectively, had
detected at either stage I or stage II, although occurred, corresponding to rates of death from
the stage distribution was more favorable in lung cancer of 247 and 309 deaths per 100,000
the low-dose CT group than in the radiography person-years, respectively, and a relative reduction
group (Table 6). Small-cell lung cancers were, in in the rate of death from lung cancer with low-
general, not detected at early stages by either dose CT screening of 20.0% (95% CI, 6.8 to 26.7;
low-dose CT or radiography. A total of 92.5% of P = 0.004). Figure 1B shows the cumulative num-
stage IA and stage IB cancers in the low-dose CT ber of deaths from lung cancer in the two screen-
group and 87.5% of those in the radiography ing groups through January 15, 2009. When only
group were treated with surgery alone or surgery participants who underwent at least one screen-

Lung Cancer Not Confirmed

Thoracotomy,
Thoracoscopy, or Needle No Invasive
Mediastinoscopy Bronchoscopy Biopsy Procedure Total
number (percent)
164 (100.0) 227 (100.0) 66 (100.0) 16,596 (100.0) 17,053 (100.0)
138 (84.1) 216 (95.2) 59 (89.4) 16,579 (99.9) 16,992 (99.6)

26 (15.9) 11 (4.8) 7 (10.6) 17 (0.1) 61 (0.4)
9 (5.5) 2 (0.9) 0 1 (<0.1) 12 (0.1)
13 (7.9) 9 (4.0) 6 (9.1) 16 (0.1) 44 (0.3)
4 (2.4) 0 1 (1.5) 0 5 (<0.1)
2 (1.2) 4 (1.8) 0 5 (<0.1) 11 (0.1)
45 (100.0) 46 (100.0) 24 (100.0) 4,559 (100.0) 4,674 (100.0)
38 (84.4) 46 (100.0) 23 (95.8) 4,551 (99.8) 4,658 (99.7)

7 (15.6) 0 1 (4.2) 8 (0.2) 16 (0.3)
1 (2.2) 0 0 3 (0.1) 4 (0.1)
6 (13.3) 0 1 (4.2) 2 (<0.1) 9 (0.2)
0 0 0 3 (0.1) 3 (0.1)
0 0 0 3 (0.1) 3 (0.1)
ing test were included, there were 346 deaths from the reduction in overall mortality with the use of
lung cancer among 26,455 participants in the low- low-dose CT dropped to 3.2% and was not sig-
dose CT group and 425 deaths among 26,232 par- nificant (P = 0.28).
ticipants in the radiography group. The number
needed to screen with low-dose CT to prevent one Discussion
death from lung cancer was 320.
In the NLST, a 20.0% decrease in mortality from
Overall Mortality lung cancer was observed in the low-dose CT
There were 1877 deaths in the low-dose CT group, group as compared with the radiography group.
as compared with 2000 deaths in the radiography The rate of positive results was higher with low-
group, representing a significant reduction with dose CT screening than with radiographic screen-
low-dose CT screening of 6.7% (95% CI, 1.2 to ing by a factor of more than 3, and low-dose CT
13.6) in the rate of death from any cause (P = 0.02). screening was associated with a high rate of false
We were unable to obtain the death certificates positive results; however, the vast majority of false
for two of the participants in the radiography positive results were probably due to the presence
group who died, but the occurrence of death was of benign intrapulmonary lymph nodes or non-
confirmed through a review by the end-point veri- calcified granulomas, as confirmed noninvasive-
fication team. Although lung cancer accounted ly by the stability of the findings on follow-up CT
for 24.1% of all the deaths in the trial, 60.3% of scans. Complications from invasive diagnostic
the excess deaths in the radiography group were evaluation procedures were uncommon, with death
due to lung cancer (Table 7). When deaths from or severe complications occurring only rarely, par-
lung cancer were excluded from the comparison, ticularly among participants who did not have

404
Table 5. Stage and Histologic Type of Lung Cancers in the Two Screening Groups, According to the Result of Screening.*
Stage and Histologic

Low-Dose CT Chest Radiography
Type
Positive Negative No Positive Negative No

Screening Test Screening Test Screening Test Total Screening Test Screening Test Screening Test Total
(N = 649) (N = 44)† (N = 367)‡ (N = 1060) (N = 279) (N = 137)† (N = 525)‡ (N = 941)
number/total number (percent)
Stage
IA 329/635 (51.8) 5/44 (11.4) 82/361 (22.7) 416/1040 (40.0) 90/275 (32.7) 16/135 (11.9) 90/519 (17.3) 196/929 (21.1)
IB 71/635 (11.2) 2/44 (4.5) 31/361 (8.6) 104/1040 (10.0) 41/275 (14.9) 6/135 (4.4) 46/519 (8.9) 93/929 (10.0)
IIA 26/635 (4.1) 2/44 (4.5) 7/361 (1.9) 35/1040 (3.4) 14/275 (5.1) 2/135 (1.5) 16/519 (3.1) 32/929 (3.4)
The
IIB 20/635 (3.1) 3/44 (6.8) 15/361 (4.2) 38/1040 (3.7) 11/275 (4.0) 6/135 (4.4) 25/519 (4.8) 42/929 (4.5)
IIIA 59/635 (9.3) 3/44 (6.8) 37/361 (10.2) 99/1040 (9.5) 35/275 (12.7) 21/135 (15.6) 53/519 (10.2) 109/929 (11.7)
IIIB 49/635 (7.7) 15/44 (34.1) 58/361 (16.1) 122/1040 (11.7) 27/275 (9.8) 24/135 (17.8) 71/519 (13.7) 122/929 (13.1)
IV 81/635 (12.8) 14/44 (31.8) 131/361 (36.3) 226/1040 (21.7) 57/275 (20.7) 60/135 (44.4) 218/519 (42.0) 335/929 (36.1)
Histologic type
n engl j med 365;5

Bronchioloalveolar 95/646 (14.7) 1/44 (2.3) 14/358 (3.9) 110/1048 (10.5) 13/276 (4.7) 1/135 (0.7) 21/520 (4.0) 35/931 (3.8)
carcinoma
Adenocarcinoma 258/646 (39.9) 8/44 (18.2) 114/358 (31.8) 380/1048 (36.3) 112/276 (40.6) 37/135 (27.4) 179/520 (34.4) 328/931 (35.2)
Squamous-cell 136/646 (21.1) 13/44 (29.5) 94/358 (26.3) 243/1048 (23.2) 70/276 (25.4) 24/135 (17.8) 112/520 (21.5) 206/931 (22.1)
nejm.org
carcinoma
n e w e ng l a n d j o u r na l

Large-cell carcinoma 28/646 (4.3) 3/44 (6.8) 10/358 (2.8) 41/1048 (3.9) 12/276 (4.3) 10/135 (7.4) 21/520 (4.0) 43/931 (4.6)
of
Non–small-cell carci- 75/646 (11.6) 4/44 (9.1) 52/358 (14.5) 131/1048 (12.5) 40/276 (14.5) 30/135 (22.2) 88/520 (16.9) 158/931 (17.0)
noma or other§
august 4, 2011
Small-cell carcinoma 49/646 (7.6) 15/44 (34.1) 73/358 (20.4) 137/1048 (13.1) 28/276 (10.1) 32/135 (23.7) 99/520 (19.0) 159/931 (17.1)
Carcinoid 5/646 (0.8) 0 1/358 (0.3) 6/1048 (0.6) 1/276 (0.4) 1/135 (0.7) 0 2/931 (0.2)

m e dic i n e
* The denominators represent only cancers with a known stage or known histologic type. The stage was not known in the case of 14 cancers after a positive screening test and 6 after
no screening in the low-dose CT group and in the case of 4 cancers after a positive screening test, 2 after a negative screening test, and 6 after no screening in the radiography group.
The histologic type was not known for 3 cancers after a positive screening test and 9 after no screening in the low-dose CT group and for 3 cancers after a positive screening test,
2 after a negative screening test, and 5 after no screening in the radiography group.
† Negative screening tests included tests that revealed either minor or clinically significant abnormalities that were not suspicious for lung cancer.
‡ The 892 lung cancers in participants with no screening test included 35 in participants who were never screened, 802 that were diagnosed during the post-screening period, and 55 in
participants who were due for a screening test.
§ The 289 lung cancers in this category (in the two groups combined) included 28 adenosquamous carcinomas, 6 sarcomatoid carcinomas, 55 unclassified carcinomas, 1 anaplastic-type
carcinoma, 1 carcinosarcoma, and 198 coded only as “non–small-cell carcinoma.”
lung cancer. The decrease in the rate of death from

any cause with the use of low-dose CT screening A Lung Cancer
1100
suggests that such screening is not, on the whole,
1000
deleterious. Low-dose CT
Cumulative No. of Lung Cancers

900
A high rate of adherence to the screening, low
800 Chest radiography
rates of lung-cancer screening outside the NLST,
700
and thorough ascertainment of lung cancers and 600
deaths contributed to the success of the NLST. 500
Moreover, because there was no mandated diag- 400
nostic evaluation algorithm, the follow-up of posi- 300
tive screening tests reflected the practice patterns 200
at the participating medical centers. A multidis- 100
ciplinary team ensured that all aspects of the 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
NLST were conducted rigorously.
Years since Randomization
There are several limitations of the NLST. First,
as is possible in any clinical study, the findings B Death from Lung Cancer
may be affected by the “healthy-volunteer” effect, 500
which can bias results such that they are more
Cumulative No. of Lung-Cancer Deaths
Chest radiography
favorable than those that will be observed when
400
the intervention is implemented in the commu- Low-dose CT
nity.24 The role of this bias in our results cannot
300
be ascertained at this time. Second, the scanners
that are currently used are technologically more
200
advanced than those that were used in the trial.
This difference may mean that screening with
today’s scanners will result in a larger reduction 100
in the rate of death from lung cancer than was

observed in the NLST; however, the ability to de- 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
tect more abnormalities may result only in higher
Years since Randomization
rates of false positive results.25 Third, the NLST
was conducted at a variety of medical institutions,
Figure 1. Cumulative Numbers of Lung Cancers and of Deaths from Lung
many of which are recognized for their expertise Cancer.
in radiology and in the diagnosis and treatment The number of lung cancers (Panel A) includes lung cancers that were di-
of cancer. It is possible that community facilities agnosed from the date of randomization through December 31, 2009. The
will be less prepared to undertake screening pro- number of deaths from lung cancer (Panel B) includes deaths that occurred
grams and the medical care that must be asso- from the date of randomization through January 15, 2009.
ciated with them. For example, one of the most
important factors determining the success of
screening will be the mortality associated with The designers of the NLST reasoned that if the
surgical resection, which was much lower in the PLCO trial were to show a reduction in lung-cancer
NLST than has been reported previously in the mortality with radiographic screening, a trial of
general U.S. population (1% vs. 4%).26 Finally, the low-dose CT screening in which a community-
reduction in the rate of death from lung cancer care group was the control would be of less val-
associated with an ongoing low-dose CT screen- ue, since the standard of care would have become
ing program was not estimated in the NLST and screening with chest radiography. Nevertheless,
may be larger than the 20% reduction observed the choice of radiography precludes a direct com-
with only three rounds of screening. parison of low-dose CT with community care.
Radiographic screening rather than community Analysis of the subgroup of PLCO participants
care (care that a participant usually receives) was who met the NLST criteria for age and smoking
chosen as the comparator in the NLST because history indicated that radiography, as compared
radiographic screening was being evaluated in the with community care, does not reduce mortality
PLCO trial at the time the NLST was designed.11 from lung cancer.27 Therefore, a similar reduction

406
Table 6. Histologic Type of Lung Cancers in the Two Screening Groups, According to Tumor Stage.*
Total No.
Histologic Type of Cancers Stage of Cancer
IA IB IIA IIB IIIA IIIB IV

Low-dose CT group
Bronchioloalveolar carcinoma 110 83/110 (75.5) 6/110 (5.5) 3/110 (2.7) 1/110 (0.9) 1/110 (0.9) 8/110 (7.3) 8/110 (7.3)
Adenocarcinoma 380 173/376 (46.0) 48/376 (12.8) 17/376 (4.5) 10/376 (2.7) 31/376 (8.2) 33/376 (8.8) 64/376 (17.0)
The
Squamous-cell carcinoma 243 90/239 (37.7) 35/239 (14.6) 9/239 (3.8) 16/239 (6.7) 26/239 (10.9) 32/239 (13.4) 31/239 (13.0)
Large-cell carcinoma 41 17/41 (41.5) 4/41 (9.8) 0/41 3/41 (7.3) 7/41 (17.1) 5/41 (12.2) 5/41 (12.2)
Non–small-cell carcinoma, other† 131 38/127 (29.9) 10/127 (7.9) 1/127 (0.8) 5/127 (3.9) 16/127 (12.6) 17/127 (13.4) 40/127 (31.5)
Small-cell carcinoma 137 8/133 (6.0) 1/133 (0.8) 5/133 (3.8) 3/133 (2.3) 17/133 (12.8) 27/133 (20.3) 72/133 (54.1)
Carcinoid 6 2/2 (100.0) 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2
n engl j med 365;5

Unknown 12 5/12 (41.7) 0/12 0/12 0/12 1/12 (8.3) 0/12 6/12 (50.0)
Total 1060 416/1040 (40.0) 104/1040 (10.0) 35/1040 (3.4) 38/1040 (3.7) 99/1040 (9.5) 122/1040 (11.7) 226/1040 (21.7)
Radiography group
nejm.org
Bronchioloalveolar carcinoma 35 17/35 (48.6) 1/35 (2.9) 1/35 (2.9) 2/35 (5.7) 3/35 (8.6) 5/35 (14.3) 6/35 (17.1)
n e w e ng l a n d j o u r na l
Adenocarcinoma 328 83/326 (25.5) 42/326 (12.9) 17/326 (5.2) 12/326 (3.7) 29/326 (8.9) 29/326 (8.9) 114/326 (35.0)

of
Squamous-cell carcinoma 206 51/205 (24.9) 29/205 (14.1) 6/205 (2.9) 17/205 (8.3) 24/205 (11.7) 28/205 (13.7) 50/205 (24.4)
Large-cell carcinoma 43 9/42 (21.4) 5/42 (11.9) 1/42 (2.4) 1/42 (2.4) 10/42 (23.8) 7/42 (16.7) 9/42 (21.4)
august 4, 2011
Non–small-cell carcinoma or other† 158 20/155 (12.9) 9/155 (5.8) 3/155 (1.9) 5/155 (3.2) 24/155 (15.5) 24/155 (15.5) 70/155 (45.2)

Small-cell carcinoma 159 11/157 (7.0) 6/157 (3.8) 4/157 (2.5) 5/157 (3.2) 18/157 (11.5) 28/157 (17.8) 85/157 (54.1)
m e dic i n e
Carcinoid 2 2/2 (100.0) 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2

Unknown 10 3/7 (42.9) 1/7 (14.3) 0/7 0/7 1/7 (14.3) 1/7 (14.3) 1/7 (14.3)
Total 941 196/929 (21.1) 93/929 (10.0) 32/929 (3.4) 42/929 (4.5) 109/929 (11.7) 122/929 (13.1) 335/929 (36.1)
* The denominators represent only cancers for which the stage was known.
† The 289 lung cancers in this category (in the two groups combined) included 28 adenosquamous carcinomas, 6 sarcomatoid carcinomas, 55 unclassified carcinomas, 1 anaplastic-type
carcinoma, 1 carcinosarcoma, and 198 coded only as “non–small-cell carcinoma.”
Table 7. Cause of Death on the Death Certificate, According to Screening Group.*
Cause of Death Low-Dose CT Group Radiography Group Total

Neoplasm of bronchus and lung† 427/1865 (22.9) 503/1991 (25.3) 930/3856 (24.1)
Other neoplasm 416/1865 (22.3) 442/1991 (22.2) 858/3856 (22.3)
Cardiovascular illness 486/1865 (26.1) 470/1991 (23.6) 956/3856 (24.8)
Respiratory illness 175/1865 (9.4) 226/1991 (11.4) 401/3856 (10.4)
Complications of medical 12/1865 (0.6) 7/1991 (0.4) 19/3856 (0.5)
or surgical care
Other 349/1865 (18.7) 343/1991 (17.2) 692/3856 (17.9)
* A total of 3875 death certificates were received (1877 for participants in the low-dose CT group and 1998 for those in
the radiography group), but the cause of death was unknown for 12 participants in the low-dose CT group and 7 in
the radiography group. The denominators represent only the deaths for which the cause was known. Causes of death
were categorized according to the following codes in the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10):
neoplasms of bronchus and lung, C33-C34; neoplasms other than bronchus and lung, C00-D48 (excluding C33 and
C34); cardiovascular illness, I00-I99; respiratory illness, J00-J99; complications of medical or surgical care, S00-T17.8,
T18-T99, and Y40-Y84; unknown, R96-R99 and death certificates without a coded cause of death; and other, all remain-
ing codes.
† The number of deaths from neoplasm of the bronchus and lung in this table is not equal to the number of lung-cancer
deaths in the lung-cancer mortality analysis. The lung-cancer deaths included here are those that were determined from
information on the death certificate only (without review by the end-point verification team) and include deaths that oc-
curred through December 31, 2009.
in lung-cancer mortality would probably have been pean studies are gathering types of data that were
observed in the NLST if community care had been not collected by the NLST and will be able to
chosen instead for the control group. address additional questions about low-dose CT
In addition to the high rate of false positive screening, including the best strategies for the
results, two other potentially harmful effects of management of nodules observed with screening.37
low-dose CT screening must be mentioned. Over- The observation that low-dose CT screening
diagnosis, a major source of controversy surround- can reduce the rate of death from lung cancer has
ing low-dose CT lung-cancer screening, results generated many questions. Will populations with
from the detection of cancers that never would risk profiles that are different from those of the
have become symptomatic.28 Although additional NLST participants benefit? Are less frequent
follow-up would be necessary to measure the screening regimens equally effective? For how long
magnitude of overdiagnosis in the NLST, a com- should screening continue? Would the use of dif-
parison of the number of cancers diagnosed in the ferent criteria for a positive screening result, such
two trial groups suggests that the magnitude of as a larger nodule diameter, still result in a ben-
overdiagnosis with low-dose CT as compared with efit? It is unlikely that large, definitive, random-
radiographic screening is not large. The other ized trials will be undertaken to answer these
harmful effect, the association of low-dose CT questions, but modeling and microsimulation can
with the development of radiation-induced can- be used to address them. Although some agencies
cers, could not be measured directly, is a long- and organizations are contemplating the estab-
term phenomenon, and must be assessed in fu- lishment of lung-cancer screening recommenda-
ture analyses.29 tions on the basis of the findings of the NLST, the
A number of smaller, randomized trials of low- current NLST data alone are, in our opinion, in-
dose CT screening are under way in Europe. 30-36 sufficient to fully inform such important decisions.
Because none of these trials have sufficient sta- Before public policy recommendations are craft
tistical power to detect a reduction in lung-can- ed, the cost-effectiveness of low-dose CT screen-
cer mortality of the magnitude seen in the NLST, ing must be rigorously analyzed. The reduction
it is expected that meta-analyses of the findings in lung-cancer mortality must be weighed against
from these trials will be performed. The Euro- the harms from positive screening results and

overdiagnosis, as well as the costs. The cost com- mens that were obtained as part of ACRIN’s
ponent of low-dose CT screening includes not only NLST activities and are available to the research
the screening examination itself but also the di- community — may one day help select persons
agnostic follow-up and treatment. The benefits, who are best suited for low-dose CT screening or
harms, and costs of screening will all depend on identify persons with positive low-dose CT screen-
the way in which low-dose CT screening is im- ing tests who should undergo more rigorous di-
plemented, specifically in regard to the eligibility agnostic evaluation.
criteria, screening frequency, interpretation thresh- The American College of Radiology Imaging Network compo-
nent of the National Lung Screening Trial (NLST) was funded
old, diagnostic follow-up, and treatment. For ex- through grants (U01-CA-80098 and U01-CA-79778) under a coop-
ample, although there are currently only about erative agreement with the Cancer Imaging Program, Division of
7 million persons in the United States who would Cancer Treatment and Diagnosis. The Lung Screening Study sites
of the NLST were funded through contracts with the Early Detec-
meet the eligibility criteria for the NLST, there are tion Research Group and Biometry Research Group, Division of
94 million current or former smokers6 and many Cancer Prevention: University of Colorado Denver (N01-CN-25514),
Georgetown University (N01-CN-25522), Pacific Health Research
more with secondhand exposure to smoke or other
and Education Institute (N01-CN-25515), Henry Ford Health Sys-
risk factors. The cost-effectiveness of low-dose CT tem (N01-CN-25512), University of Minnesota (N01-CN-25513),
screening must also be considered in the context Washington University in St. Louis (N01-CN-25516), University of
Pittsburgh (N01-CN-25511), University of Utah (N01-CN-25524),
of competing interventions, particularly smoking Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation (N01-CN-25518), Uni-
cessation. NLST investigators are currently ana- versity of Alabama at Birmingham (N01-CN-75022), Westat
lyzing the quality-of-life effects, costs, and cost- (N01-CN-25476), and Information Management Services (N02-
CN-63300).
effectiveness of screening in the NLST and are Mr. Clapp reports holding a financial interest in Human Ge-
planning collaborations with the Cancer Interven- nome Sciences; and Dr. Gatsonis, receiving consulting fees from
tion and Surveillance Modeling Network to inves- Wilex, MELA Sciences, and Endocyte, lecture fees from Bayer
HealthCare, and support from the Radiological Society of North
tigate the potential effect of low-dose CT screen- America for developing educational presentations. No other po-
ing in a wide range of scenarios. tential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.
Other strategies for early detection of lung can- Disclosure forms provided by the authors are available with
the full text of this article at NEJM.org.
cer — in particular, molecular markers in blood, We thank the trial participants for their contributions in mak-
sputum, and urine, which can be studied in speci- ing this trial possible.
appendix
The members of the writing team of the National Lung Screening Trial Research Team are as follows: Denise R. Aberle, M.D., Univer-
sity of California at Los Angeles, Los Angeles; Amanda M. Adams, M.P.H., American College of Radiology Imaging Network (ACRIN)
Biostatistics Center, Brown University, Providence, RI; Christine D. Berg, M.D., Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Insti-
tute, Bethesda, MD; William C. Black, M.D., Dartmouth–Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH; Jonathan D. Clapp, B.S., Information
Management Services, Rockville, MD; Richard M. Fagerstrom, Ph.D., Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethes-
da, MD; Ilana F. Gareen, Ph.D., ACRIN Biostatistics Center, Brown University, Providence, RI; Constantine Gatsonis, Ph.D., ACRIN
Biostatistics Center, Brown University, Providence, RI; Pamela M. Marcus, Ph.D., Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Insti-
tute, Bethesda, MD; and JoRean D. Sicks, M.S., ACRIN Biostatistics Center, Brown University, Providence, RI.
References
1. Ding L, Getz G, Wheeler DA, et al. So- 5. Pierce JP, Messer K, White MM, Cowl- Arams RS, McCauley DI. Low-dose CT of
matic mutations affect key pathways in ing DW, Thomas DP. Prevalence of heavy the lungs: preliminary observations. Ra-
lung adenocarcinoma. Nature 2008;455: smoking in California and the United diology 1990;175:729-31.
1069-75. States, 1965-2007. JAMA 2011;305:1106-12. 10. The National Lung Screening Trial
2. Sanders HR, Albitar M. Somatic mu- 6. Cigarette smoking among adults and Research Team. The National Lung Screen-
tations of signaling genes in non-small- trends in smoking cessation — United ing Trial: overview and study design. Ra-
cell lung cancer. Cancer Genet Cytogenet States, 2008. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly diology 2011;258:243-53.
2010;203:7-15. Rep 2009;58:1227-32. 11. Church TR, National Lung Screening
3. Jemal A, Siegel R, Xu J, Ward E. Can- 7. Jemal A, Center MM, DeSantis C, Trial Executive Committee. Chest radiog-
cer statistics, 2010. CA Cancer J Clin 2010; Ward EM. Global patterns of cancer inci- raphy as the comparison for spiral CT in
60:277-300. [Erratum, CA Cancer J Clin dence and mortality rates and trends. the National Lung Screening Trial. Acad
2011;61:133-4.] Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2010; Radiol 2003;10:713-5.
4. Cancer of the lung and bronchus (in- 19:1893-907. 12. The National Lung Screening Trial
vasive): trends in SEER incidence and U.S. 8. Doria-Rose VP, Szabo E. Screening Research Team. Baseline characteristics
mortality using the Joinpoint Regression and prevention of lung cancer. In: Kern- of participants in the randomized Nation-
Program, 1975-2007 with up to four Join- stine KH, Reckamp KL, eds. Lung cancer: al Lung Screening Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst
points, 1992-2007 with up to two Join- a multidisciplinary approach to diagno- 2010;102:1771-9.
points, both sexes by race/ethnicity. (http:// sis and management. New York: Demos 13. Cagnon CH, Cody DD, McNitt-Gray
seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2007/results_ Medical Publishing, 2010:53-72. MF, Seibert JA, Judy PF, Aberle DR. De-
merged/sect_15_lung_bronchus.pdf.) 9. Naidich DP, Marshall CH, Gribbin C, scription and implementation of a quality

control program in an imaging-based co-sponsored tobacco use special cessa- for the Dutch-Belgian randomised lung
clinical trial. Acad Radiol 2006;13:1431- tion supplement to the current population cancer multi-slice CT screening trial
41. survey. 2003. (http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/ (NELSON). Int J Cancer 2007;120:868-74.
14. Gierada DS, Garg K, Nath H, Strollo studies/tus-cps.) 31. Pedersen JH, Ashraf H, Dirksen A, et
DC, Fagerstrom RM, Ford MB. CT quality 23. Travis WD, Branbilla E, Noguchi M, et al. The Danish Randomized lung cancer
assurance in the lung screening study al. International Association for the Study ct screening trial — overall design and
component of the National Lung Screen- of Lung Cancer/American Thoracic Society/ results of the prevalence round. J Thorac
ing Trial: implications for multicenter European Respiratory Society internation- Oncol 2009;4:608-14.
imaging trials. AJR Am J Roentgenol al multidisciplinary classification of lung 32. Lopes Pegna A, Picozzi G, Mascalchi
2009;193:419-24. adenocarcinoma. J Thorac Oncol 2011;6: M, et al. Design, recruitment and baseline
15. Fritz A, Percy C, Jack A, et al., eds. 244-85. results of the ITALUNG trial for lung can-
International classification of diseases 24. Pinsky PF, Miller A, Kramer BS, et al. cer screening with low-dose CT. Lung
for oncology. 3rd ed. Geneva: World Evidence of a healthy volunteer effect in Cancer 2009;64:34-40.
Health Organization, 2000. the prostate, lung, colorectal, and ovarian 33. Infante M, Cavuto S, Lutman FR, et al.
16. Greene FL, Page DL, Fleming ID, et al. cancer screening trial. Am J Epidemiol A randomized study of lung cancer screen-
AJCC cancer staging manual. 6th ed. New 2007;165:874-81. ing with spiral computed tomography:
York: Springer-Verlag, 2002. 25. Mahesh M, Hevezi JM. Slice wars vs three-year results from the DANTE trial.
17. Izmirlian G. Estimation of the relative dose wars in multiple-row detector CT. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2009;180:445-
risk following group sequential proce- J Am Coll Radiol 2009;6:201-2. 53.
dure based upon the weighted log-rank 26. Bach PB, Cramer LD, Schrag D, 34. Marchianò A, Calabrò E, Civelli E, et
statistic. arXiv, Cornell University Library, Downey RJ, Gelfand SE, Begg CB. The in- al. Pulmonary nodules: volume repeat-
2011. (http://arxiv.org/abs/1102.5088.) fluence of hospital volume on survival ability at multidetector CT lung cancer
18. SAS/STAT, version 9.2. Cary, NC: SAS after resection for lung cancer. N Engl J screening. Radiology 2009;251:919-25.
Institute, 2004. Med 2001;345:181-8. 35. Becker N, Delorme S, Kauczor H-U.
19. R Development Core Team. R: a lan- 27. NCI NLST press conference. NCI radio LUSI: the German component of the Euro-
guage and environment for statistical broadcasts. November 4, 2010. (http://www pean trial on the efficacy of multi-slice CT
computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Sta- .cancer.gov/newscenter/radio-broadcasts.) for the early detection of lung cancer.
tistical Computing, 2009. 28. Welch HG, Black WC. Overdiagnosis in Onkologie 2008;31:Suppl 1:PO320. abstract.
20. Jennison C, Turnbull BW. Group se- cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:605-13. 36. Baldwin DR, Duffy SW, Wald NJ, Page
quential methods with applications to 29. Berrington de González A, Kim KP, R, Hansell DM, Field JK. UK Lung Screen
clinical trials. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman Berg CD. Low-dose lung computed to- (UKLS) nodule management protocol:
& Hall/CRC, 2000. mography screening before age 55: esti- modelling of a single screen randomised
21. Statement concerning the National mates of the mortality reduction required controlled trial of low-dose CT screening
Lung Screening Trial. October 28, 2010. to outweigh the radiation-induced cancer for lung cancer. Thorax 2011;66:308-13.
(http://www.cancer.gov/images/ risk. J Med Screen 2008;15:153-8. 37. van Klaveren RJ, Oudkerk M, Prokop
DSMB-NLST.pdf.) 30. van Iersel CA, de Koning HJ, Draisma M, et al. Management of lung nodules de-
22. Department of Commerce, Census Bu- G, et al. Risk-based selection from the tected by volume CT scanning. N Engl J
reau. National Cancer Institute and Cen- general population in a screening trial: Med 2009;361:2221-9.
ters for Disease Control and Prevention selection criteria, recruitment and power Copyright © 2011 Massachusetts Medical Society.
journal archive at nejm.org

Every article published by the Journal is now available at NEJM.org, beginning
with the first article published in January 1812. The entire archive is fully searchable,
and browsing of titles and tables of contents is easy and available to all.
Individual subscribers are entitled to free 24-hour access to 50 archive articles per year.
Access to content in the archive is available on a per-article basis and is also
being provided through many institutional subscriptions.


NLST PrimaryPaper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NLST PrimaryPaper

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

NLST PrimaryPaper

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

new england

Reduced Lung-Cancer Mortality with Low-Dose Computed

N Engl J Med 2011;365:395-409.

n engl j med 365;5 nejm.org august 4, 2011 395

396 n engl j med 365;5 nejm.org august 4, 2011

The New England Journal of Medicine

n engl j med 365;5 nejm.org august 4, 2011 397

398 n engl j med 365;5 nejm.org august 4, 2011

The New England Journal of Medicine

R e sult s Table 1. Selected Baseline Characteristics of the Study Participants.*

Characteristics of the Participants Low-Dose CT Group Radiography Group

n engl j med 365;5 nejm.org august 4, 2011 399

Table 2. Results of Three Rounds of Screening.*

400 n engl j med 365;5 nejm.org august 4, 2011

The New England Journal of Medicine

Variable Low-Dose CT Chest Radiography

n engl j med 365;5

The New England Journal of Medicine

Copyright © 2011 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.

Complication Lung Cancer Confirmed

402 n engl j med 365;5 nejm.org august 4, 2011

The New England Journal of Medicine

Lung Cancer Not Confirmed

164 (100.0) 227 (100.0) 66 (100.0) 16,596 (100.0) 17,053 (100.0)

138 (84.1) 216 (95.2) 59 (89.4) 16,579 (99.9) 16,992 (99.6)

45 (100.0) 46 (100.0) 24 (100.0) 4,559 (100.0) 4,674 (100.0)

38 (84.4) 46 (100.0) 23 (95.8) 4,551 (99.8) 4,658 (99.7)

n engl j med 365;5 nejm.org august 4, 2011 403

Stage and Histologic

Positive Negative No Positive Negative No

n engl j med 365;5

The New England Journal of Medicine

Copyright © 2011 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.

lung cancer. The decrease in the rate of death from

Cumulative No. of Lung Cancers

in the rate of death from lung cancer than was

n engl j med 365;5 nejm.org august 4, 2011 405

IA IB IIA IIB IIIA IIIB IV

number/total number (percent)

n engl j med 365;5

The New England Journal of Medicine

Copyright © 2011 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.

Carcinoid 2 2/2 (100.0) 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2 0/2

Table 7. Cause of Death on the Death Certificate, According to Screening Group.*

Cause of Death Low-Dose CT Group Radiography Group Total

n engl j med 365;5 nejm.org august 4, 2011 407

408 n engl j med 365;5 nejm.org august 4, 2011

The New England Journal of Medicine

journal archive at nejm.org

n engl j med 365;5 nejm.org august 4, 2011 409

You might also like